Medium Aevum Quotidianum: n.42 (2000)
This contribution is intended as a case study of urban material culture in the late Middle Ages. The particular aspect to be investigated – city-owned public facilities – is worth of attention for several reasons.
Of these, the most important is the fact that public facilities constitute one of the most prominent indicators of the level of development, everyday needs, and living conditions in late medieval urban society:
“Die historische Umwelt, Alltag and Fest des spatmittelalterlichen Stadtbewohners, Gesundheit, Daseinvorsorge and Bildungsvermittlung wurden in entscheidender Weise vom Volumen and der Intensitat offentlicher Bauanstrengungen bestimmt.”1
(The historical environment, everyday life and special days of the late medieval city-dwellers, as well as their health, means of existence, and the transfer of knowledge were decisively determined by the intensity and volume of public building activity.)2
Although we completely agree with this remark by Gerhard Fouquet, it is nevertheless necessary to note that in the present essay we shall consider “public facilities” in a somewhat wider sense. Not only relevant building activities (although they will receive most of the attention), but also other factors connected to satisfying various areas of public need, will be taken into account.
Another reason for studying urban public facilities, and especially those controlled by town governments, is the possibility of touching upon the issue of administration of the town’s finances. On the one hand, public facilities could represent a source of income. On the other hand, their construction, maintenance, and functioning always demanded certain expenses. In some cases these costs were extremely high, and provide a good illustration of the methods used by medieval town governments to mobilize substantial funds.
In our study of urban public facilities in Lviv (Lemberg), we intend to proceed as follows. We shall present and interpret the available data on the historical development of different public facilities. We will consider then the measures taken by the town government to provide for their construction, maintenance, and functioning, and finally identify their purposes and the role they played in the life of the town. The discussion of the purposes and the role of different groups of facilities will be continued and further amplified by placing them within the context of their relative importance to the town government. This will be done mostly through a comparison of the expenditures incurred and (where applicable) of the incomes and other benefits derived by the town government in connection with this or that facility. Knowledge of income and costs should help us form conclusions concerning the level of development in administration and financing of the public facilities achieved by Lviv at the beginning of the fifteenth century.
The main sources used in the present essay are two account books from the town government of Lviv, covering the years 1404-1426.3 These books predominantly contain records of the incomes and expenses of the town government, although the records of debts (both due to and owed by the government), the results of elections to the town council, lists of new citizens, and schedules of extraordinary taxes (schoss, exaccio) are also to be found there. For our purposes, most important are the sections on incomes and expenses.
In addition to the account books, a number of auxiliary sources are used in the present study. These are charters, either connected directly to the foundation, ownership, and use of the public facilities or containing at least some information about them.4 Another auxiliary source is the book of the town council and scabinal court from the years 1381-1389,5 which also provides, in addition to the records on property transactions, the decrees of the council for that period. The same kind of information is available from the work of Karol Badecki, in which he collected and commented upon the fragments of the lost fifteenth-century books of the town council.6 Of some significance as a primary source is the “chronicle” of the nineteenth-century Lviv historian Dionizy Zubrzycki since it contains data from archival material, which was subsequently lost.7 These works, however, by no means compensate the loss of the town council’s account book from 1414-1459. During the period 1414-1426 this book was kept as a complement to the extant one, and predominantly contained records of incomes.8
Lviv was founded by rulers of the Ruthenian Halych-Volhyn principality in the mid-thirteenth century. Originally it served as a stronghold of resistance against the Mongol-Tatar invasion.9 By the end of the thirteenth century, however, the settlement had become an important centre of commerce, mainly due to its position at the end of the trade routes leading from the Black Sea Italian colonies to the Baltic coast (through Torun), and to such major German urban centres as Wroclaw and Nuremberg (through Krakow).10 During the second half of the thirteenth century a heavy influx of Armenian, Jewish, and especially German craftsmen and merchants took place. The predominantly German settlement, situated immediately to the south of the old Ruthenian town, formed the basis for what was later considered as the proper civitas of Lviv.11
In 1349, after several military campaigns by the Polish king Kazimir the Great, Galicia and its major urban centre – Lviv – became dependent from the kingdom of Poland. For a relatively short period from 1370 to 1388 Galicia and Lviv formed a part of the Hungarian kingdom. In 1388, however, they again submitted to Polish rule, this time for good.
Throughout the second half of the fourteenth century Lviv received a great deal of attention from its rulers. Recongnising Lviv’s role both as a centre of trade and as a border stronghold, they granted several important privileges to the town; the most significant of them were the right of possession and use of 100 mansi of land adjoining the town 12 as well as the right to impose a fourteen-day staple duty on the merchants travelling through Lviv.13
As for Lviv’s legal status as a civitas, tradition connects its origins to a charter of locatio issued in 1356 by Kazimir the Great in which to Lviv was granted Magdeburg law.14 However, there is sufficient evidence to show that various institutions, characteristic of urban settlements under German law (advocatus, town council, guilds), existed in Lviv long before that date. This suggests that the first locatio privilege may already have been granted to Lviv by the Ruthenian rulers.15 Such a suggestion agrees well with the fact that multiple locatio for one settlement was a usual practice in the medieval kingdom of Poland.16 Thus, by the end of the fourteenth century Lviv had, in addition to a solid economic status, a rather long tradition of administration based on the German model.
The government of Lviv consisted of the town council, presided over by the proconsul, and the scabinal court, presided over by the advocatus. Each of the two groups – councillors (consules) and scabinal judges (scabini) – was composed of twelve lifetime members. Each year, six of the twelve members were elected to hold office. The councillors and scabinal judges belonged to the upper stratum of Lviv citizens. Usually they were members of the most wealthy merchant and landowner families. It happened quite often that the representatives of these families occupied places in town’s government for several generations.17
While the functions of the scabinal court were limited to exercising the judicial power of the government, the town council had a much wider range of responsibilities. Along with legislative activity and representing the community politically, the councillors were also in charge of the general management of the town’s economy.
For the members in late medieval municipal government, their towns were not unlike profitable enterprises.18 In order for an enterprise to be successful, several conditions had to be fulfilled. The enterprise required that a certain level of security be maintained. Its employees should have a relatively comfortable and healthy work environment, there should be some means of controlling and of extracting profit. Finally, it was always advantageous when the public thought well of an enterprise. If late medieval towns may be thought of as “enterprise,” then it is clear that fulfilment of each of these conditions at least partially depended on availability and functioning of this or that public facility. Let us examine how the town-council of early fifteenth-century Lviv, thus, created a “successful enterprise”.
Various narrative sources display discrepancies in terms of the dating of the oldest Western-style fortifications in Lviv. Some state that the construction of walls and towers was started by Kazimir the Great after he had conquered Lviv and granted the town a locatio charter. Other sources mention the fortifications as already existing in 1350, which might be viewed as an argument for dating their origins to the period of the Halych-Volhyn principality.19
The first record that can be considered completely reliable comes from 1368. It is a royal charter granting to the town the possession and use of one hundred mansi of land adjoining the walls: centum mansos franconicos . . . incipiendo a fronte murorum.20 In the records from 1382-1389 we have numerous references to the town walls and especially to the two main gates: Halych gate and Tatar gate.21 A bridge in front of the Halych gate is also mentioned.22 Most of the scholars, therefore, agree that the first fortification line of medieval Lviv, the “higher” walls, was functional before the beginning of the fifteenth century.23
The analysis of the town council’s account books provide another argument which favours the opinion that the “higher” wall had been completed by the end of the fourteenth century. During the years 1404-1407 we observe only minor expenditures (less than 2 sexagenae per annum)24 on repairs to the wooden elements such as the tower and wall roofs (tectus ad sagittandum), steps (gradus), and gates (as a supplement of the discussion of the fortification expenses, here and henceforth).25 The character of such expenditures suggests maintenance of the existing buildings rather than full-fledged construction work.26 The same is true about the two gate bridges: in 1407-1408, less than 9sexagenae are spent for the wooden beams, boards, nails, and labour. In 1405 and 1406 there are no expenditures for the bridges.
The situation changed in 1408 when the construction of a new tower began (turris nowa retro macellas, later turris Carnificium). Along with the usual maintenance work on the wooden parts of the walls and towers, we observe an increase of expenditures for bricks in 1408 and 1409 (20.5 and 16 sexagenae, respectively). During these two years, however, only the preparatory work and production of the building material must have taken place. Construction proper began in 1410. It is in this year that the expenses for the production of bricks (20 sexagenae) were accompanied by those for mortar (7 sexagenae) as well as the salary of two masons (22.5 sexagenae). Construction of the turris Carnificium probably ended by 1413 since the volume of masonry work gradually declined through 1411 and 1412.
Along with the construction of the new tower, work on the defensive moats started in the spring of 1409.27 The amount of funds and labour dedicated to this purpose as well as the wording of the account book (. . . inceperunt fossatum fodere . . .) suggest that the records from 1409 and onwards refer to a substantial enlargement of the moats rather than to mere improvement and conservation. Already in that year, expenses ad fossatum were quite substantial (29 sexagenae) although they reached their highest levels in 1410. The labour of unskilled workers, paid on a week-by-week or daily basis, was predominantly used for improving the moats. The data from the account books make it possible to estimate the average number of the workers employed. The labour of unskilled workers lasted from 6 May until 20 June in 1409 and from 16 June until 2 October in 1410.28 Taking a five-day working week as usual for German-speaking territories in the thirteenth-fifteenth centuries,29 it can be seen that unskilled workers worked 30 days on the improvement of the moats in 1409 and 50 days, in 1410. Having considered the total expenditures for unskilled workers during these two years (990 grossi and 6153 grossi, respectively) and the usual daily payment of such workers in early fifteenth-century Lviv (1.5 grossi),30 we can conclude that in 1409 the number of the workers was 22, rising to 82 in 1410. The increase in the purchases of timber and payments to the carpenters in 1410 can also be explained by the ongoing improvements to the defensive moats. After being dug to the necessary depth, these moats were reinforced with wooden poles.31
During the period of 1413-1415, fortification work almost completely ceased. The only exceptions are rather substantial improvements to the bridge in front of the Halych gate (16 sexagenae spent). Also in 1415, minor expenses for improvements to the wall and the defensive moats are recorded.
The second significant peak in fortification activity occurred in 1418, when Lviv’s government began construction of the second fortification line – the “lower” wall – along the eastern and partly northern and southern borders of the town.32 The decision to build the “lower” wall was connected with the necessity of modernising Lviv’s fortification system and help adapt it to the growing role of artillery in the sieges.33 Again, in the years preceding 1418 one notices an increasing volume of brick production (almost 6 sexagenae were spent for this material in 1416 and 42 sexagenae in 1417), while in 1418 the costs of production and transportation of bricks, stones, and mortar together with the salary of two masons ran to 166 sexagenae. The construction of the wall continued over the following two years as well, although at a much lower intensity (in 1419, 10 sexagenae were spent for bricks and less than 5 sexagenae for the transportation of materials and masons’ salary; in 1420, 36.5 sexagenae for bricks and 3 sexagenaefor stone).
The year 1422 marks the third peak in the volume of fortification activity. Thus, the town both resumed construction of the “lower” wall (125 sexagenae spent for stone, mortar, transportation of materials, and masons’ salaries) and made more substantial repairs on the wooden roofs above towers and the galleries of the “higher” wall (almost 10sexagenae paid for shingles, nails, and other materials). In comparison with previous years, a fairly high amount of work was carried out both on the Tartar and Halych gates bridges (total expenses more than 7 sexagenae). At the same time, defensive moats were further enlarged and improved at a total cost of 40 sexagenae (this includes workers’ pay, purchase of tools, and production of wooden support elements).
Such a sudden rise in the building activity (and not only in the field of defense) in 1422 was due to the fact that at least a part of the funds, collected from Lviv citizens to support the king in his campaign against the Teutonic order in 1421, had never been used directly for this purpose and remained in the hands of the town council.34 In addition to this, the king issued an order to the nobility possessing the lands in the vicinity of Lviv, according to which the noblemen had to place a certain number of their peasants at the town council’s disposal for this fortification work.35
However, the most important factor in determining the outcome of Lviv government’s fortification projects was a royal privilege granted to the town the end of 1425. The privilege exempted Lviv merchants from customs duty throughout the kingdom of Poland under the condition that an equivalent amount of money would be submitted to the town council for financing fortification work.36 Notable fortification expenditures were already made the next year, namely 23 sexagenae for construction of the wall and 6sexagenae for work on the moats. Unfortunately, extant records do not allow us to trace the details of development of the second fortification line until 1428, when Muri Ciuitatis ex libertate Theloneorum et ex collectis Ciuium . . . sunt erecti.37 Nevertheless, an impressive sum for fortification expenses during the period from 1425 to 1428, 4118 sexagenae,38 points to the fact that the main bulk of the work on the second fortification line became feasible only after Lviv had obtained a substantial source of financing ex libertate Theloneorum.
Organisation of defense
There is no exact evidence concerning the manning of Lviv’s fortifications at the beginning of the fifteenth century. It is known, however, that at that time no mercenaries were hired by the town. In times of peace, only night guards (vigiles, vigilatores, wechter) kept watch at the gate towers and at the tower of the town hall, possibly due to reluctance of burghers to render this service.39 The night guards were paid by the town council, although in quite an irregular manner (the sums of payments ranged from more than 7sexagenae, as in 1412, to no payment at all, as in 1407, 1415-1417, 1420, 1421, and 1426.)
In times of war, the fortifications were manned by the citizens. It was, therefore, necessary to ensure that they had some military training. This training was carried out predominantly through target practice at the meetings of the so-called “marksmen’s fraternity.”40 Although Zubrzycki first mentions the existence of such a fraternity in 1446,41the extant account books show that an expenditure of 1.5 sexagenae was already made for the czelstat (target practice facility) in 1419 (it is not clear, however, whether the purpose of that money was maintenance of the facility or a reward to the best marksman).42
The weapons were most probably individually purchased by citizens.43 This responsibility was, however, also shared by guilds and the town council. Thus, in 1407 Lviv’s government passed a decree demanding that within a year every guild should procure one crossbow.44 Eight guilds actually followed the town council’s order by paying a bow maker 0.5 sexagena each,45 while the councillors themselves paid 4 sexagenae.46
There was, however, one kind of weapon owned by the entire urban community. That weapon was fire artillery, which in the fifteenth century became crucial for the defense of towns.47 The first reference to cannons in Lviv comes from 1394, when the king brought several of them to the town along with six barrels of gunpowder.48 It is not clear whether these cannons remained in the town, but in any case Lviv already had artillery by 1404, since in that year we find payments to a cannon maker (magister pixidum).
Some historians of Lviv claim that in the first quarter of the fifteenth century the town conducted a full-fledged manufacture of its own cannons, since the magister pixidum appears many times in the records of the account books from that period.49 Nevertheless, the character of the expenses gives rise to doubt such a claim. Indeed, moulding cannons usually involved significant funds.50 What we find in the records, however, are predominantly payments for production of wooden cannon stands (1 sexagena, 1410; 5.7 sexagenae, 1414; 2 sexagenae, 1422), stone missiles (4 sexagenae, 1410; 0.5 sexagena, 1411; 0.5 sexagena for transportation of missiles, 1416), and gunpowder (9.5sexagenae, 1410; 4.5 sexagenae, 1417; 22.5 sexagenae, 1422.) The salary of the cannon makers between 1404 and 1425 (ranging from 3 to 5 sexagenae per annum,51 and even that paid very irregularly) is also an argument against the existence of regular cannon production in Lviv in that period. It is possible that one cannon was produced in 1414-1415,52 when the town purchased 88.5 lapides (circa 1150 kilograms) of iron for 14 sexagenae, and paid the cannon maker an unusually high salary of 10 sexagenae.53 From 1426 onward, however, the salary of a newly hired cannon maker (18 marks, equivalent of 14.4 sexagenae),54 were more adequate for the high costs of cannon moulding, and may be taken as an indication of a more regular production of cannons in Lviv.
The development of defense facilities in Lviv is another example of a general tendency observed in late medieval European towns, namely, the highly irregular character of defense- and especially fortification-related expenditures.55 To a great extent this can be explained by the unpredictability of military necessities. However, there is another factor of no lesser importance where in the beginning of the fifteenth century Lviv seems to have played a predominant role. This factor is the extremely high cost of substantial improvements to the town’s defense system.56 The usual incomes of the town were not sufficient to finance larger defense projects. Only the availability of some extraordinary (and therefore, short-term) sources of income provided possibilities for more than just maintenance and conservation of defense facilities.57
Similarly, the financial aspect should be taken into account when considering the purposes of Lviv’s defense-related projects. Of course, their direct purpose – protection of the town and of the kingdom – played a very important role in determining the decisions of both the town council and of the royal administration. This is especially true for the second half of the twenties and the thirties of the fifteenth century, when the territory of Galicia was threatened by Tatar raids. In fact, Lviv’s fortifications acted as a barrier for one such raid in 1438.58 Nevertheless, it is also clear that undertaking substantial fortification projects provided a possibility to attract additional funds into the town’s budget, which then could be used for purposes not necessarily related to defense.59
1. Gerhard Fouquet, “‘Ad Structuram civitatis’: Der offentliche Baubetrieb Hamburgs and die Errichtung von Muhlen- and Schleusenanlagen in Fuhlsbuttel wahrend der Jahre 1465/87,” in Offentliches Bauen in Mittelalter and friiher Neuzeit: Abrechnungen als Quellen fir die Finanz-, Wirtschafts- and Sozialgeschichte des Batiwesens, edited by Ulf Dirlmeier, Rainer S. Elkar, and Gerhard Fouquet (Siegen: Scripta Mercaturae, 1991), 206.
2. Translation mine.
3 Pomniki dziejowe Lwowa, vol. 2 and 3; for the description of the originals see Karol Badecki, Archiwum Akt Dawnych miasta Lwowa: A. Oddzial staropolski. (Archive of the early acts of Lviv: A. Department of Old Poland), vol. 4, Ksiegi rachunkowe (lonherskie): 1404-1788 (Account books: 1404-1788) (Lviv: Nakladem gminy krol. stol. miasta Lwowa, 1936), 1-4.
4. The charters are published in Akta grodzkie i ziemskie z ezasow Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej z archiwum tak zwanego Bernardyriskiego we Lwowie (Castrensial and terrestrial acts from the times of Rzeczpospolita Polska from the so‑called Bernardine archive in Lviv), 24 vols.; vols. 1-10 (Lviv: Galicyjski wydzial krajowy, 1868-1884).
5. Pomniki dziejowe Lwowa, vol. 1; for the description of the originals see Badecki, Archiwum Akt Dawnych, vol. 3, Ksiegi i akta administracyjno-sodowe: 1382-1787 (Books and acts of the administration and court: 1382-1787) (Lviv: Nakladem gminy krol. stol. miasta Lwowa, 1935), 1-2.
6. Karol Badecki, Zaginione ksiCgi sredniowiecznego Lwowa: Studjum rekonstrukcjjne (The lost books of medieval Lviv: A study in their reconstruction) (Lviv: Nakladem gminy miasta Lwowa, 1927).
7. Dionizy Zubrzycki, Kronika miasta Lwowa (Chronicle of the city of Lviv) (Lviv: Nakladem autora, 1844).
8. Badecki, Archiwvm Akt Dawnych, vol. 4, 4‑5; Badecki, Zaginione ksiegi, 34-39.
9. Aleksander Czolowski, Lwow za ruskich czasow (Lviv in the Ruthenian period) (Lviv: Gubrynowicz i Scmidt, 1891), 8-10.
10. Lucja Charewiczowa, Handel sredniowiecznego Lwowa (Commerce in medieval Lviv) (Lviv: Wydawnictwo Zakladu Narodowego imienia Ossolinskich, 1925), 31-32.
11. Czolowski, Lwow za ruskich czasow, 11-12.
12. Akta grodzkie i ziemskte, vol. 3, no. 19, 21.
13. Akta grodzkie i ziemskie, vol. 3, no. 32, 42.
14. Akta grodzkie i ziemskie, vol. 3, no. 5.
15. Jozef Skoczek, “Ze studjow nad sredniowiecznym Lwowem” (From studies of medieval Lviv), Pamietnik Historyczno-Prawny 6.3 (1928): 360-366; Myron Kapral’, “Pryvilej 1365 roku jak povtome nadannia magdeburz’koho prava dlia mista L’vova” (The privilege of 1365 as the second granting of Magdeburg Law to Lviv), in L’viv: Misto, suspil’stvo, kul’tura: Zbirnyk naukovykh prats’ (Lviv: City, society, culture: A collection of scholarly works), edited by Marjan Mudryj (Lviv: LDU im. Ivana Franka, 1999), 11-21.
16. Paul W. Knoll, “The Urban Development of Medieval Poland: With Particular References to Cracow,” in The Urban Society of Eastern Europe in Premodern Times, edited by Barisa Krekic (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), 87.
17. Jozef Skoczek, “Studja nad patrycjatem lwowskim wiekow srednich” (A study on Lviv patriciate in the Middle Ages), Pamietnik Historycmo‑Prawny 7.5 (1929): 238-239, 250-251.
18. Maria Bogucka and Henryk Samsonowicz, Dzieje miast i mieszczanstwa w Polsce przedrozbiorowej (History of the cities and burghers in Poland before its division) (Wroclaw: Ossolineum, 1986), 177-178.
19. Josyp Hrons’kyj, “Oboronni ukriplennia seredn’ovichnoho L’vova” (Defensive forti–fications of medieval Lviv), Zhovten’ 6 (1979): 121.
20. Akta grodzkie i ziemskie, vol. 3, no. 19.
21. Pomniki dziejowe Lwowa, vol. 1, no. 12, 25, 135, 160a, 187, 207, 215, 218, 333, 376, 392, 405, 414, 442, 444, 556, 624, 632, 646 649.
22. Pomniki dziejowe Lwowa, vol. 1, no. 392.
23. Franciszek Jaworski, Lwow za Jagiellv: Opowiadania historyczne (Lviv in Jagellon times: Historical sketches) (Lviv: Towarzystwo Milosnikow Przeszlosci Lwowa, 1910), 43‑44; Hrons’kyj, “Oboronni ukriplennia,” 121.
24. Except for figures, where the data is presented in Polish grossi, all other references to financial operations are given in sexagenae, the currency predominating in our sources.Sexagenae were the traditional Galician currency used in the fourteenth-fifteenth centuries along with the common currency of the kingdom of Poland, Polish marks. Onesexagena was equivalent to 60 Polish grossi, while one Polish mark equaled 48 grossi. The relation of sexagena to Polish mark was, therefore 5 : 4. In Lviv in 1404-1426 approximate prices for some goods were as follows: I lapis (12.06 kg) of bee wax, 1 sexagena; 1 lapis of pepper, 3.5-4 sexagenae; a barrel of beer, 0.5 sexagena; one horse, 3-4sexagenae.
25. Figure 2 [not included here] shows, on the one hand, the amounts indicated in the records that explicitly refer to the basic elements of the fortification system (such records, however, do not represent the whole of fortification expenses). On the other hand, there were those costs connected to the three main kinds of construction work (the purpose of which is not always indicated). Juxtaposition of these data allows a rough estimate of the actual fortification expenses.
26. Taking this into account, the suggestion of Josyp Hrons’kyj (see Hrons’kyj, “Oboronni ukriplennia,” 122) concerning the construction of the Tatar gate tower (“turris porte Tartarorum“) and the Jews’ tower (“turris ludeorum“) during the years of 1404-1408 does not seem plausible. The available records are related only to the maintenance of these buildings, while their construction clearly dates to an earlier period, not covered by the extant account books.
27 “Domini consules inceperunt fossatum fodere feria secunda ante festum sti Stanislay post Pascha [6 May] anno Domini MCCCC nono.” Pomniki dziejowe Lwowa, vol.2, 248.
28 Pomniki dziejowe Lwowa, vol. 2, 243, 246‑248; cf. Antje Sander, “Die Luneburger Bauamtsrechnungen von 1386 bis 1388,” in Offentliches Bauen in Mittelalter and fruher Neuzeit: Abrechnungen als Quellen fur die Finanz-, Wirtschafts- and Sozialgeschichte des Bauwesens, edited by Ulf Dirlmeier, Rainer S. Elkar, and Gerhard Fouquet (Siegen: Scripta Mercaturae, 1991), 102; Fouquet, “Baubetrieb Hamburgs,” 229.
29. Ulf Dirlmeier, “Zu Arbeitsbedingungen and Lohnen von Bauhandwerkem im Spatmittelalter,” in Deutsches Handwerk in Spotmittelalter and fruher Neuzeit: Sozialgeschichte – Volkskunde – Literaturgeschichte, edited by Rainer S. Elkar (Gottingen: Otto Schwartz, 1983), 38; cf. Gerhard Fouquet, Bauen fur die Stadt: Finanzen, Organisation and Arbeit in kommunalen Baubetrieben des Spdtmittelalters: Eine vergleichende Studie vornehmlich znvischen den Stddten Basel and Marburg (Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: B6hlau, 1999), 54-56; Sander, “Die Liineburger Bauamtsrechnungen,” 103.
30. Pomniki dziejowe Lwova, vol. 2-3, passim
31. Cf. Sander, “Die Luneburger Bauamtsrechnungen,” 102.
32. Jaworski, Lwow za Jagielly, 45-47.
33. Jaworski, Lwow za Jagielly,, 43, 45; cf David Eltis, “Towns and Defense in Later Medieval Germany,” Nottingham Medieval Studies 33 (1989): 92-93.
34. Jaworski, Lwow za Jagielly, 47-48. Cf, cases of similar “inappropriate” use of collected taxes described in Albert Rigaudiere, “Le financement des fortifications urbaines en France du milieu du XIV siecleAa la fin du XVe siecle,” Revue Historique 273 (1985): 83-84.
35. Jaworski, Lwow za Jagielly, 49; cf. the terminology of the account book “villani”, “dorffschaft”, “Reusse”. The practice of using peasants’ labour in fortification of towns was common in late medieval Europe; cf Rigaudiere, “Le financement des fortifications urbaines,” 34-37.
36. Akta grodzkie i ziemskie, vol. 4, no. 75. Cf. Rigaudiere, “Le financement des fortifications urbaines,” 40-42.
37. Badecki, Zaginione ksiegi, no. 11.14.
38. Zubrzycki, Kronika miasta Lwowa, 93.
39. Cf Eltis, “Towns and Defense,” 98.
40. Cf Eltis, “Towns and Defense,” 99; Gerhard Fouquet, “Die Finanzierung von Krieg and Verteidigung in oberdeutschen Stadten des spaten Mittelalters (1400-1500),” in Stadt and Krieg: 25. Arbeitstagung in Boblingen 1986, edited by Bernhard Kirchgassner and Gunter Scholz (Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke, 1989), 65; Walter Hummelberger, “Die Bewaffnung der Burgerschaft im Spatmittelalter am Beispiel Wiens,” in Das Leben in der Stadt des Spatmittelalters: Internationaler Kongress, Krems and der Donau, 20. bis 23. September 1976, edited by Heinrich Appelt (Vienna: Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1980), 200-201.
41. Zubrtycki, Kronika miasta Lwowa, 106.
42. Pomniki dziejowe Lwowa, vol. 3, 235.
43. CE Eltis, “Towns and Defense,” 91-92; Hummelberger, “Die Bewaffnung der Burgerschaft,” 197.
44. “Domini consules condictauenrnt, quod de qualibet arte mechanicorum vnam balistam in vno anno debent ordinare et pro eadem vice quelibet ars mechanica debet dare ½ sxg. arcufici.” Pomniki dziejowe Lwowa, vol. 2, 146. Crossbow remained the most widely used hand weapon until the end of the fifteenth century. Hummelberger, “Die Bewaffung der Biirgerschaft,” 199-200.
45. Pomniki dziejowe Lwowa, vol. 2, 146.
46. Pomniki dziejowe Lwowa, vol. 2, 144.
47. Eltis, “Towns and Defense,” 93-94.
48. Jaworski, Lwow za Jagielly, 57; Karol Badecki, Sredniowieczne ludwisarstivo lwowskie (Metal moulding in Lviv in the Middle Ages) (Lviv: Wydawnictwo Zakladu Narodowego im. Ossolinskich, 1921), 24.
49. Badecki, Sredniowieczne ludwisarstwo lwowskie, 21-32.
50. Eltis, “Towns and Defense,” 93.
51. Pomniki dziejowe Lwowa, vol. 2, 23, 111; vol. 3, 12.
52. Cf. .J. P. Kis’, Promyslovist’ L’vova a period feodalizmu (XIII-XIX st.) (Industry in Lviv in the period of feudalism, thirteenth – nineteenth centuries) (Lviv: Vydavnytstvo L’vivs’koho universytetu, 1968), 116.
53. Pomniki dziejowe Lwowa, vol. 2, 42, 76.
54. Pomniki dziejowe Lwowa, vol. 2, 426.
55. Cf Gerhard Fouquet and Ulf Dirlmeier, “Probleme and Methoden der quantitativen Finanz–und Wirtschaftsgeschichte des Spatmittelalters: Offentliche Finanzen and stadtische Militdrpolitik in Basel and Hamburg wiihrend der Jahre 1460 his 1481,” in Geschichts wissenschaft and elektronische Datenverarbeitung, edited by Karl Heinrich Kaufhold and Jurgen Schneider (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1988), 206-209; Fouquet, “Die Finanzierung von Krieg and Verteidigung,” 60-61; Rigaudibre, “Le financement des fortifications urbaines,” 88-89.
56. Cf Eltis, “Towns and Defense,” 94-95; Rigaudiere, “Le financement des fortifications urbaines,” 90-94.
57. Cf Fouquet, “Die Finanzierung von Krieg and Verteidigung,” 69-74; Rigaudifre, “Le financement des fortifications urbaines,” 56-60.
58. Zubrzycki, Kronika miasta Lwowa, 99.
59. Expenditure of more than 23 sexagenae “de pecunia fossait” for representation and other costs unrelated to defense purposes in 1414-1415 is just one example (Pomniki dziejowe Lwowa, vol. 3, 9, 14.) Cf. Rigaudiere, “Le financement des fortifications urbaines,” 25, 82-83.
This article was first published in Medium Aevum Quotidianum n.42 (2000). We thank the editors of this journal for their permission to republish this article. Only the first section of this article is republished here, and readers interested in other aspects of public services in Lviv should consult the print edition for more information.